Now for the life of me, I can not understand how people can believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years old or Noah's Flood actaly happend. It really blows my mind that some people think "holy books" written thousands of years ago can be used a guide to science.

Are these people insane?

I also have meet people who believed that Aliens built the pyramids, gave us culture, etc.

The likelihood of this going to soapbox territory seems very very high. That said, cognitive dissonance is powerful. People recognize that belief in the literal truth of the bible / various other religious teachings and belief in science are at odds. That conflict creates cognitive dissonance, which they endeavor to resolve. One possible resolution would be to reject belief in the literal truth of religious stories. The other possible resolution is to try to force science into alignment with these religious stories (or simply reject science outright).

It isn't so surprising that some people choose the latter. Human beings are primarily creatures of emotion, not logic. We trick ourselves into believing we're rational with post-hoc rationalizations, but our decisions are generally motivated by our emotional responses. Even those of us who are atheists often become atheists for emotional reasons (a negative experience with a rabidly religious person at a young age, for example), not because we sat down one day, carefully weighed all the evidence, and decided it was the most rational position. We probably did have a conversation with ourselves like that at some point, but by then we had already made up our minds what the "right" conclusion would be.

That's not to say that we're incapable of making rational decisions. When there are no strong emotions involved we often do, and if we're willing to admit our emotional responses, and confront them, we can even sometimes make rational decisions on things we are emotional about - but that goes against our predisposition.

One possible resolution would be to reject belief in the literal truth of religious stories. The other possible resolution is to try to force science into alignment with these religious stories (or simply reject science outright).

I have argued with fundies by telling them that a all powerful God can choose to create life by any way he sees fit. And allow evolution as well. For some reason fundies will not accept this possiblty.

Some people have told me that aliens built the pyramids, and created our species by interbreeding with Homo Erectus. The last I tried to explain, if true our DNA would be diffront from other living things on our world.

Average dimensions of a casket are 84 inches (2.1336 meters) long by 28 inches (0.7112 meters) wide by 23 inches (0.5842 meters) high. So an average casket lying on the ground takes up approximately 1.517 square meters.

Average dimensions of a casket are 84 inches (2.1336 meters) long by 28 inches (0.7112 meters) wide by 23 inches (0.5842 meters) high. So an average casket lying on the ground takes up approximately 1.517 square meters.

So yes, the entire world population could currently live in Texas. Probably not particularly comfortably, but they'd fit.

So who gets to live in the nice parts, and who has to live in Houston?

Topic: what you believe depends on what you've been taught and how you've been taught. People believe in a young Earth because that's what they've been taught from a young age, and they've been taught to reject anything that doesn't conform to that view as "nonsense".

Just as someone brought up in a largely secular household would be highly skeptical of the KJV of Genesis as a literal account of history.

None of us are free of bias. I like to think that the secular side wins on the weight of evidence, but given that both sides can't even agree on what constitutes "evidence"...

A guy I used to know claimed that the world's population could all fit in Texas.

Quote:

Even so the Ecosystem couldn't support them

Wandering Wastrel's math involved caskets, so "Ecosystem" is somewhat moot. Given a large enough crematorium, I suspect I could fit them all in Rode Island.

A living population living in a Texas sized building would be a study in engineering that staggers the mind. producing food and trucking it in, and waste out, would be one of the more straightforward problems. After all, we produce enough food for the world already, (and ironically, most of it is consumed in Texas the US) and half of my diet was probably grown across the globe anyway. I'd think that heat and air management would be the biggest problem to solve. One big city, some specialized areas such as farms and power plants, and leave the rest of the globe alone. Could work. Not going to happen, but if you could guarantee the city was pleasant I'd go for it.

whm1974 wrote:

I also have meet people who believed that Aliens built the pyramids, gave us culture, etc.

I am more easily convinced that aliens visited at some point in the past, rather than the present. After all "the past" is much larger target. I watched a "documentary" that raised some interesting questions. The figurines that look surprisingly like modern day airplanes and the similarity of some ancient sites to runways does make me a bit. Still, all in all, a much simpler assumption is that we advanced further then we thought and lost some history. I could very easily be convinced of ancient gliders. But an even simpler explanation is "the past is much larger target": of all the little figurines made and discovered, the ones that remind of of airplanes stand out.

I also tend to question everything, look at the evidence, and let the chips fall where they may.

My oh-so-conservative, definitely-does-not-think-like-a-scientist friend is fond of saying the very same thing about himself.

Someone's belief system informs their worldview, including the kinds of "facts" that are, and ought to be, in it.

It's typically difficult to challenge someone's beliefs, without touching an emotional third rail. That's part of the problem. Most everyone believes that they're rational, masters* of logical analysis (to one degree or the other).

Combine that with a tendency for (the perception of) holding the moral high ground, WRT personal beliefs, and you've got the makings for... well... let's not go there.

Actually, that's one of the differences between Fundyesques and others, and probably contributes to the ability for some to change their minds while others remain steadfast, even in the face of new, contradictory information.

When what we know about the Universe is limited to what we can see and hear, its pretty easy to believe people are the most important thing going. But as the Universe gets bigger, we don't. Add more to God's "Creation" and that seems like that should be more glory to God. After all, if the Universe is unimaginably big and amazingly old, God must be even more amazing than we thought, right?

But humanity looks a lot smaller. If everything we know is confined to one "pale blue dot", and that dot is easily lost in a sea of dots that is literally larger than it's possible to see, are we really that important?

People in general don't care about science, facts, reason, philosophy, theology, or any of those things. We have a bad habit of picking our beliefs based on what makes us look good. It's the same reason kissing up is better for your career than working hard. The root cause of asshole Christians who think they deserve an eternal reward because they worship on a different day than some other Christians is the same root cause of asshole scientists who continue to fight for their pet theory long after the evidence shows that it's wrong. People don't like to be reminded of their own insignificance. All that varies is how much they're willing to lie to themselves about it.

Actually, that's one of the differences between Fundyesques and others, and probably contributes to the ability for some to change their minds while others remain steadfast, even in the face of new, contradictory information.

I used to make sexist remarks about women and that they are here to serve men. Yet the women who were offended belong to churches that said the same thing. I even showed a few of them where in the Bible the verses were.

Quote:

Christians who think they deserve an eternal reward because they worship on a different day than some other Christians

I used to make sexist remarks about women and that they are here to serve men. Yet the women who were offended belong to churches that said the same thing. I even showed a few of them where in the Bible the verses were.

Average dimensions of a casket are 84 inches (2.1336 meters) long by 28 inches (0.7112 meters) wide by 23 inches (0.5842 meters) high. So an average casket lying on the ground takes up approximately 1.517 square meters.

Or, roughly .85 cubic meters. If we stack them, into a cube, that's about 5.1 billion cubic meters. Or a cube a little bit over 1.2 miles on a side. They would comfortable sit in a small fraction of the Grand Canyon...about .05% of it, actually.

When what we know about the Universe is limited to what we can see and hear, its pretty easy to believe people are the most important thing going. But as the Universe gets bigger, we don't. Add more to God's "Creation" and that seems like that should be more glory to God. After all, if the Universe is unimaginably big and amazingly old, God must be even more amazing than we thought, right?

But humanity looks a lot smaller. If everything we know is confined to one "pale blue dot", and that dot is easily lost in a sea of dots that is literally larger than it's possible to see, are we really that important?

People in general don't care about science, facts, reason, philosophy, theology, or any of those things. We have a bad habit of picking our beliefs based on what makes us look good. It's the same reason kissing up is better for your career than working hard. The root cause of asshole Christians who think they deserve an eternal reward because they worship on a different day than some other Christians is the same root cause of asshole scientists who continue to fight for their pet theory long after the evidence shows that it's wrong. People don't like to be reminded of their own insignificance. All that varies is how much they're willing to lie to themselves about it.

I also think it's laziness. With religion you get pre-packaged "facts" which are all expressed in conveniently human sized units everyone can relate to. Amount of time for the Earth to form...? Six days. How long for the rain to cover the Earth...? 40 days. What happens when you die...? Rewards in Heaven or punishment in Hell *FACT*, as told in the Bible, page xyz.

Science by contrast requires that you think rather blindly believe. And that is hard. Scientific theories are often incomplete which means things might change later. And people really don't like change. Often scientific theories produce results which aren't common sense. (Look at Global Warming which some are now believing / not believing in like it's a new religion.)

Many people are raised in groups and families that share common beliefs. There is a lot of good that can come from these groups, from the sense of community, to supporting each others as well as strangers, and even a feeling of stability and roots.

Now, if your group beloved that the earth is on the back of 4 elephants riding on a turtle -- how exactly does that affect your work? That mistaken belief in cosmology will not harm you on a daily basis. Being a pariah in your group will.

So, you rationalize. You compartmentalize. And this goes to all facets of life. You may not believe that monogamy is good, and you may practice its opposite. But, you're probably going to agree that it's a good thing because your group does.

Now for the life of me, I can not understand how people can believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years old or Noah's Flood actaly happend. It really blows my mind that some people think "holy books" written thousands of years ago can be used a guide to science.

With religion you get pre-packaged "facts" which are all expressed in conveniently human sized units everyone can relate to...Science by contrast requires that you think rather blindly believe. And that is hard.

What you're saying might be true in theory, but in practice science (or scientists, anyway) depends very on "conveniently human sized units." Especially today in our era of hyper-specialization, not too many people question scientific facts "from first principles." As a result, there ends up being a lot of rather blind belief in science, as elsewhere.

The hard part (for everyone, including scientists) is following where a question leads (rather than where one wants it to).

With religion you get pre-packaged "facts" which are all expressed in conveniently human sized units everyone can relate to...Science by contrast requires that you think rather blindly believe. And that is hard.

What you're saying might be true in theory, but in practice science (or scientists, anyway) depends very on "conveniently human sized units." Especially today in our era of hyper-specialization, not too many people question scientific facts "from first principles." As a result, there ends up being a lot of rather blind belief in science, as elsewhere.

The hard part (for everyone, including scientists) is following where a question leads (rather than where one wants it to).

I find blind belief in science to be as bad as blind belief in religion and gods. As much as is possible (mostly constrained by time) I always try to understand the reasoning behind scientific theories. At least with science, if you ask questions about it there will be reasoned answers. (And this improves my understanding behind it).

A lot of people don't do this since it is easier watch yet another soap opera on tv...

For example, if we want a house, we employ builders to do it. There's no "blind belief in construction". Nor do we blindly believe in bricks or walls. We instead trust that the construction workers are competent and won't make mistakes. Of course, sometimes they will, then they come back and fix the mistakes.

If we want discoveries, we employ scientists to do it. There's no "blind belief in science". Nor do we blindly believe in semiconductors or antibiotics. We instead trust that the scientists are competent and won't make mistakes. Of course, sometimes they will, then they come back and fix the mistakes.

I know of bunch of folks that believe they correctly predicted (via handwaving inspired by science fiction) that artificial intelligence is going to kill us all, terminator style [unless very carefully programmed to be 'friendly']. The AI, once made, would become dramatically superhuman within a week or so. The saddest thing is they call themselves rationalist. They freaked out one time about an idea that if the evil artificial intelligence pre-commits to simulate and torture you till end of time unless you help it come around, you will have to help it come around, or be tortured, and so it would pre-commit to do that, as to increase it's chances of coming around (I do not know the exact argument coz they deleted it but i guess that's what the handwave was about. Might've been even less sane). I wish I was making this shit up. Bunch of atheists literally reinvented religion, completely with god and devil and heaven and hell.

Some people may be refusing to think, but it seems to me the beliefs come around because some people did think too hard and too sloppily about stuff they couldn't possibly deduce.

As others have said, it makes a huge difference if you are brought up in a church where they teach you their beliefs regularly and from a young age. I was brought up in this way, and it took a long time for me to lose most of the irrational beliefs they taught me. Oddly enough the final impetus for my loss of faith was during the time I worked for a religious organisation and was exposed to their belief system every day after not attending church for years. It forced me to really look at my world-view and examine my beliefs as a rational (mostly) adult, and not just carry on with the habits and practises I learned as a child. Maybe most people stay within their comfortable zone of friends, and never really take a hard look at their beliefs.

Two key elements of scientific reasoning are objectivity (eliminating bias, to the extent practicable, via good design and statistical testing) and skepticism (testing, reproducibility, validity etc). Belief in the value of such tools is a net positive, and can lead to a clearer understanding of the world.To believe such tools ( or specifically, the people who use them) are infallible, is blind, and not much better than non-belief.

Also, it's worth noting, functional neuroimaging studies have demonstrated that, when evaluating cognitive function(s)involved in making judgments for topics with high emotional stakes (i.e. motivated reasoning), such as partisan politics for example, neither "progressives" nor "conservatives" used much, if any, part of the brain normally involved in cold reasoning.

Judgments and decisions were primarily driven by emotion, not cold reasoning, though participants were certain that they'd reasoned themselves into their respective positions.